Alan Rudy wrote:
>
> I didn't say this was Reed's argument, I know it isn't. This was in response
> to Chuck's question about audience, and I was drawing parallels between the
> folks Reed, quite properly, can't stand
Who, specifically, are these people, and are they in any way attached to left (socialist) goals? Whenyou identify them as "multiculturalists" it appears to me that you (Reed? WBM) are talking about University faculty who have no connection to the left or any potential left. Hence, if this is so, we are involved in a debate that can be of no relevance whatsoeever to the left - or in a metaphor Iused dearlier, Reed and WBM are angry at the rain because it wets them.
And perhaps the another matter is relevant, or at least importantly tangential to this cluster of topics. In so far as we are talking about the left at all, at this time, we are talking (whether we know it or not) about the task of coalition building. There can be no left made up of people in complete agreements. (This is not in contardiction to my often repeated argument that our agitation is aimed only at those who already agree with us. For example, in the anti-war effort, we appeal only to those who already agree that the war must end. But they will disagree wildly among themselves as to their _reasons_ for wanting the war to end, and on many other topics as well. ) As such coalitions are built, some will leave, others will come to a 'deeper' agreement, and many (especially new people) will still just be there for no other reason than "Bring the Troops Home" (and differ among trhemselves as to motive, ultimate goals, etc.)
And of course this applies to any "working-class" movement as well. There will be immense disagreements among its participants. (Some of those disagreements will in fact be so deep that they will develop into vicious political conflict in the case of a movement that overthrwos the capitalist regime and attains state power.) Conflict never ends, and in the future as in the past a major left activity will be this (temporary) reconciling of disparate views under some general umbrella that unites them in specific struggles. And whoever Reed's audience is, and whoever it is he opposes, _some_ of those people will end up in left coalitions, and the left will have to live with them. Failure to do so is the definition of sectarianism. If there is not someone you intensely dislike in your left organization, then it isn't a left organization, it's a toothless sect.
But I still want more clarity on who are Reed's friends (who is being addressed) and who, more concretely, are they being warned to shun. It sounds intensely sectarian and dogmatic to me, but I don't know yet.
Carrol